Bush and world government
7/3/2002 12:00:00 AM - Pat Buchanan
When the U.N. Security Council rejected America's demand for
immunity for U.S. soldiers in the Bosnian peace force from arrest and
prosecution by the International Criminal Court, the United States vetoed an
extension of the force. Either our troops get immunity, or our troops get
Good for President Bush.
Once again, when the demands of globalism clashed with the call
of patriotism, he put America first. Because he, not Al Gore, is in the Oval
Office, America has rejected both the ICC and the Kyoto Protocol on global
warming. Even on steel tariffs, where he put his free-trade ideology on the
shelf to protect America's steel industry from foreign dumping, Bush
exhibited a Reaganite patriotism. And the muted protests suggest that
liberals recognize that the patriot card is still the ace of trumps in
While these presidential decisions produced howls from abroad of
"unilateralism" and "isolationism," they are signs of U.S. resolve in the
struggle between God-and-country people and the globalists who await the
messiah of World Government.
And just as the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
to declare the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional tipped the hand of
judicial activists, this U.N. attempt to force U.S. troops under the ICC is
welcome. For now, we no longer see as through a glass darkly who the true
enemies of American independence are. Their dream is to limit U.S.
sovereignty and transfer control of U.S. wealth and power to a global elite
that intends to rule the world in the interests not of nations, but of
mankind. The institutions of that global regime are already up and
The Security Council is its Senate; the General Assembly its
lower house. The Supreme Court is to consist of the World Trade Organization
for trade, the ICC for war crimes and the World Court for disputes between
nations. The foreign aid dispensers are the African, Asian and Latin
American Development banks, and the World Bank. The IMF is its Federal
Reserve -- and the model is the European Union.
In the last decade, World Government made mammoth strides, with
"Third Way" socialists giving up their national currencies in Europe, the
creation of the WTO with the backing of Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole, GOP
support of new bailout billions for the IMF and Clinton's signing of America
on to the ICC.
But globalist demands have now begun to clash with U.S. vital
interests in ways even Republicans can understand. For the Senate to ratify
Kyoto would mean a rollback of U.S. fossil fuel emissions to the level of
1990 -- i.e., a depression. And even Democrats realize that the ICC's
prosecution of U.S. soldiers for war crimes means the end of the career of
any politician who lets that happen.
With immigration, sovereignty is becoming the most explosive
issue in Europe, and it is propelling populist parties toward power. So
fearful has the European Left become that it now seems hesitant to expand
and deepen the EU into an all-powerful regime.
Baroness Margaret Thatcher now concedes that Enoch Powell, whose
career was destroyed by his "rivers of blood" speech decrying Third World
immigration, was right to have opposed Britain's entry into the EU. She
seeks a British withdrawal.
The vehicle the globalists hope to ride is free trade. As the
European Coal and Steel Community led to the European Economic Community to
the European Community to the European Union today and Euroland tomorrow,
they hope NAFTA will lead to a hemispheric free-trade zone, then a global
zone with a single currency. Out of this will arise a regime that will
slowly expand its power until national sovereignty is ancient history.
The issue may be decided this decade, and we Americans will make
the decision. If the price of global trade is a WTO that can impose its
will, if the price of the Global Economy is another round of IMF bailouts,
if the price of being a world citizen is the surrender of sovereignty and
authority to the U.N., will Americans pay it?
What exactly is the price of liberty?
The globalists have a vision of the future, and they will pursue
it instinctively and incessantly. The question is: Will patriots not only
block this drive to world government, but will they to roll it back? Are
they willing to recognize, as Baroness Thatcher has, that we are far down
the road to the loss of national independence?
In this struggle, it is an advantage for true conservatives and
populists that George W. Bush is not only Andover, Yale, Skull & Bones,
Harvard Business and Kennebunkport, he is also Midland-Odessa.